Search Results

1. SD v MT [2024] NZDT 57 (19 February 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...was distracted and hit SD’s car from the rear. 2. SD and his insurer B Ltd now claim $1,484.75 in damages, comprising the cost of repairs to the [vehicle]n of $1,326.05 and rental costs of $158.70. There were no uninsured losses. 3. The tort of negligence requires payment of compensation when someone breaches a duty of care to another person causing foreseeable damage. Drivers have a duty of care towards other drivers, which includes compliance with the provisions of the Land Transpor...

2. LI Ltd v OZ [2022] NZDT 34 (30 March 2022) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 34 APPLICANT LI Ltd RESPONDENT OZ The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. On or about 1 July 2020 a vehicle driven by OZ suffered a blown tyre and left the road at [location], entered the rail corridor, travelled over the tracks, and collided with a residential fence. 2. LI Ltd (LI LTD) attended the scene and found the vehicle abandoned with...

3. BT v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 574 (30 July 2024) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...gave a rather harrowing description of his efforts to reach the workshop (after an alarm activation alerted him to flooding which was visible by remote camera), in which the floodwater reached a depth of 1.3 metres (photos provided). U Ltd’s own vehicles as well as customer vehicles were written off as a result of the event. 3. While BT’s written submissions address various arguments regarding U Ltd’s alleged breach of duty of care, and he referenced a news report giving details...

4. BN v ZJ & H Ltd [2025] NZDT 78 (10 March 2025) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...[Street], [City] on 25 August 2023 when she went around a corner and ZJ was on her side of the road facing towards her. BN says to avoid a head on collision she veered left and went up the footpath and embankment and this action caused damage to her vehicle. BN’s insurer, H Ltd, claims $3706.68 for the repairs to BN’s car. 2. ZJ says he had reversed out of a driveway after and was in BN’s lane facing her and was about to pull onto his side of the road when BN went up on the foot...

5. CS v XI & XIX 2014 NZDT 798 (27 February 2014) [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...while driving? [3] On balance I find the First Respondent failed to take sufficient care while driving. I am not satisfied the Second Respondent failed to take sufficient care or contributed to the collision. [4] The relevant law is the law of negligence. Negligence concerns the duties that one person owes another to take care. If one person breaches a duty that he or she owes to another and causes damage to the other’s property as a result, then the person who has breached...

6. UQD Ltd v KN [2020] NZDT 1415 (30 September 2020) [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...NZDT 1415 APPLICANT UQD Ltd RESPONDENT KN RESPONDENT INSURER JB Ltd The Tribunal orders: KN is to pay the sum of $2172.40 to UQD Ltd on or before 14 October 2020. Reasons 1. On 25 February 2019 KN negligently caused damage to UQD Ltd’s 1994 Nissan Largo van (fitted out as a campervan) and driven by NH. KN’s liability for the collision was not disputed and KN’s insurance company, JB Ltd, entered into a process with NH (for UQD Ltd...

7. QE v MG & B Ltd [2025] NZDT 166 (6 May 2025) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...consider the other aspects of any negligent driving. I have considered whether the applicant has contributed to the damage by her manner of driving. The Tribunal is required to apply an evidential standard. The burden is on the respondent to prove any negligence on the part of the applicant on the balance of probabilities. On the evidence presented to the Tribunal the respondent has not met his burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that the respondent was driving in other than...

8. HM and X Ltd v TM [2021] NZDT 1638 (6 July 2021) [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...[3] HU said that he had not seen TM in the intersection. He had assumed, because the light had turned green and the car alongside him had moved, that he could safely proceed into the intersection. [4] TM said that he had been following another vehicle along H Street. That vehicle had entered the intersection with X Road and stopped, waiting to turn right. TM had followed it into the intersection and stopped behind it. When the lights turned red he, TM, was caught in the middle of the in...

9. IU v TS [2023] NZDT 585 (8 November 2023) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...admits she was ahead of the applicant in the right-hand lane. Both drivers confirm they were entering the new right turn only lane. The only dispute is who had right of way. [6] The applicant and his insurer claim the respondent is liable as she negligently pulled into the turn only lane without ensuring this manoeuvre could be carried out safely. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 [7] The respondent claims she had right of way because the applicant had no legal right to use the...

10. ABT Ltd v ZYJ Ltd [2013] NZDT 71 (5 June 2013) [pdf, 75 KB]

    ...reversing out of ABT’s premises, did the driver of the ZYJ truck drive negligently? (ii) Does the exclusion clause between the customer and ZYJ apply to ABT? (iii) What are the reasonable costs of repair? Law [7] When driving a vehicle, a driver has a duty to take reasonable care to avoid damaging property belonging to others. Any failure to do so breaches that duty and renders the driver liable for the cost of repairing the property. If the driver is an agent for t...